(b) Clarification (Part 2): Since in the first Perek in Shabbos Isi holds that there are thirty-nine Melachos on Shabbos, on one of which one is not Chayav, and both Rashi and Rabeinu Tam explain that this refers to Misah, but as far as Chatas is concerned, they are all Chayav.

אלא אתא למימר - דכל שאין חייבין חטאת אין חייבין מיתה.

(c) Clarification (Part 3): What it does therefore mean is whenever one is not Chayav a Chatas, one is not Chayav Misah either.

2) TOSFOS DH LERABOS BAS

תוספות ד"ה לרבות בת

(SUMMARY: Tosfos first explain when the Torah incorporates women in its rulings and when it precludes them, then why the Gemara in Bava Kama nevertheless finds it necessary to include the of a woman that killed in the Din of the ox of a man, even though according their explanation, it ought not to be necessary).

(a) Clarification: When the Gemara says in Bava Kama that The Torah compares a woman to a man' it is referring to whatver it presents in the masculine form; But where it uses the word "Ish", it comes to exclude women, except for where it writes it twice, in which cae we apply the principle 'Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela Lerabos' ('Two consecutive exclusions come to include').

(c) Answer: Because we Darshen there 'Negichah le'Misah, Negichah le'Nizakin' (that we learn Misah from Nizakin), and by Nizakin the Torah writes "ve'Chi Yigof Shor Ish".

3) TOSFOS DH AD SHE'YEFARET L'CHA HA'KASUV YACHDAV

תוספות ד"ה עד שיפרט לך הכתוב יחדיו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos query Rashi, who cites "Yachdav" mentioned by Kil'ayim as the source of the Gemara's statement, from R. Yashiyah, who does not require 'Yachdav' to combine. They therefore ascribe the current statement to a S'vara, and Darshen "Yachdav" by Kil'ayim in the form of a local D'rashah).

פירש הקונטרס, כדרך שפרט בכלאים.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi comments 'like it did by Kil'ayim'.

ותימה, אם כן לרבי יאשיה, אמאי כתיב בהו "יחדיו"?

(b) Question (Part 1): In that case, why, according to R. Yashiyah, does the Torah write "Yachdav" by Kil'ayim?

(c) Question (Part 2): One is therefore forced to say that if not for "Yachdav", we would have thought that plowing with an ox and a donkey together, even if they are not tied together, nor may one wear a garment of wool together with one of linen, even though they are not joined or sewn together, like we Darshen in Yevamos 'One piercing of a needle is not considered joined, two is'.

אלא מסברא קאמר 'עד שיפרט לך הכתוב "יחדיו' ".

(d) Explanation #2: It is therefore a S'vara that it is not forbidden unless the Torah writes 'Yachdav' (see Maharam).

4) TOSFOS DH GAMAR KODESH MI'CHOL

תוספות ד"ה גמר קודש מחול

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain why the Limud Kodesh from Chol can only be based on the Torah's use of the word "Elohim" and not on a 'Kal va'Comer').

מדאפקיה בלשון "אלהים".

(a) Clarification (Part 1): This is because the Torah uses the expression "Elohim" (and not from a 'Kal va'Chomer') ...

דאי מק"ו, למ"ד קודש נמי, לא איצטריך לגופיה, דנילף מנשיא וחרש.

(b) Clarification (Part 2): Because if one could learn a 'Kol va'Chomer, then according to the opinion that learns Chol from Kodesh, why would we need the Pasuk for Kodesh? Why can we not learn it from Nasi and Cheresh?

אלא איכא למיפרך 'מה לבשר ודם שכן דואגים ומתביישין בכך'?

(c) Clarification (Part 3): We are therefore forced to say that on any 'Kal va'Chomer' Kodesh from Chol there is a Pircha that human beings are different, in that they are worried and embarrassed by a curse (whereas Hash-m is not).

66b----------------------------------------66b

5) TOSFOS DH MAI LO SEKALEL SH'MA MINAH TARTI

תוספות ד"ה מאי לא תקלל ש"מ תרתי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cite the double source for the prohibition of cursing Chaveiro, and answer their own query on it, though they admit that the Gemara in Shevu'os appears to clash with that. Finally, they explain why we cannot learn 'Aviv' from Mekalel Atzmo [which the Gemara in 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus' includes in the prohibition]and Cheresh).

ו'מקלל חבירו' גמרינן או מאב ונשיא או מאב וחרש ...

(a) Clarification: Whereas the prohibition of cursing Chaveiro (one's fellow-Jew) we learn either from Av and Nasi or from Av and Cheresh.

(f) Answer: Because if there was no Pasuk for Aviv, from which we learn Chaveiro, we would not learn Atzmo before we know that Chaveiro is Chayav.

6) TOSFOS DH AD SHE'YIH'YU SHENEIHEM SHAVIN

תוספות ד"ה עד שיהיו שניהם שוין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cite Rashi, who explains 'Shavin' to mean that they are both punishable, then they go on to explain as to why the Gemara's Kashya is confined to R. Meir, and does not pertain to the Rabbanan. Tosfos initially conclude that, according to their interpretation of Rashi's explanation, both with regard to a Nesu'ah Ketanah, both R. Meir and the Rabbanan will agree that he is Patur, ten go on to explain the Beraisa that we learned that we learned earlier, which rules that he is Patur. Tosfos now change their previous conclusion by drawing a distinction between R. Meir and the Rabbanan in the case of a Ketanah Nesu'ah. This enables them to establish the earlier Beraisa according to the Rabbanan, even by a Nesu'ah. After citing Rabeinu Tam, who interprets 'Shavin' to mean that they share the same death-sentence. Tosfos proceed to resolve the problems that we discussed earlier according to his explanation. Finally, they explain why it is, that according to Rabeinu Tam, in the case of the daughter of a Kohen, who receives Sereifah, whereas the Bo'el receives Chenek, the man is not Patur altogether).

פ"ה, בני עונשין.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains inasmuch as they are both punishable.

וקשה, תקשה לרבנן דמחייבין אפי' סקילה?

(b) Question: This poses a Kashya on the Rabbanan, who sentence him even to Sekilah?

(f) Conclusion (Explanation #2 [Part 1]): Alternatively, according to the Rabbanan, since the Din does change due to Katnus, it makes sense to establish a different D'rashah from "Gam Sheneihem", in which case the Beraisa above goes like the Rabbanan.

1. Conclusion (Explanation #2 [Part 2]): According to R. Meir however, since the man's Din changes from Sekilah to Chenek by an Arusah Ketanah, it is logical to say that, by a Nesu'ah, we Darshen "Gam Sheneihem" to exempt him completely.

ור"ת מפרש, דלא קאמר 'שניהן שוין' בני עונשין, אלא שוין במיתה אחת.

(g) Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that 'Sheneihen Shavin' does not refer to their both being punishable, but that they share the same death- sentence.

(h) Clarification #1: Consequently, there is no Kashya on the Rabbanan, who hold that someone who has relations with a Ketanah is Chayav Sekilah, seeing as, if she would be punishable, she would receive the same death-sentence as him.

(i) Clarification #2: Whereas according to R. Meir, who holds that he receives only Chenek, whereas if she was punishable she would receive Chenek, in which case they do not receive the same death-sentence.

א"כ נשואה קטנה, לכ"ע במיתה אחת שוין.

1. Conclusion: According to that, both opinions will agree that if she was a Nesu'ah Ketanah, where they would both be subject to the same death-penalty, he would be Chayav.

(k) Answer: It is not possible to exempt him completely, since the Gemara Darshens regarding Eidim Zomemin "La'asos le'Achiv", 've'Lo la'Achoso' (from which w learn that they both receive different punishments).

7) TOSFOS DH MA'ASEH CHIDUDIN

תוספות ד"ה מעשה חידודין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos have a problem with this D'rashah, based on the Gemara in Yevamos, and even according to the text 'Ma'aseh Hurdus', since we already know this from a different Pasuk).

(a) Question #1: The Gemara in Yevamos asks that it is obvious that 'Ma'aseh Chidudin' does not need a Pasuk to preclude it from Sekilah, when it asks 'Is this not obvious? Since when does the Torah forbid (on pain of death) an indecent act?

(b) Question #2: And the Kashya applies even according to the Sefarim that have the text 'Ma'aseh Hurdus' (i.e. having relations with her after she has died), because we already know that from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Shichvas Zera", 'to preclude one who has relations with a dead woman.

(b) Question (Part 2): If so, how can Shmuel ask why Rav remained silent, why he did not quote the Pasuk "u'Meis ha'Ish ... Levado"?, seeing as R. Meir needs that Pasuk for the other D'rashah (to preclude the second one from Sekilah)? See Maharam.